MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer Special Court (Sppression of Terrorist Activities) Sargodha whereby he on 17-10-1990 convicted Mirza Shah appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to 7 years'
R.I. And a fine of Rs.20,000 in default thereof one year's R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov Exh.P.1, which was recovered on his pointation from his shop on 24-9-1989.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Muhammad Yaqoob P.W.1 drafted formal F.I.R. Khalid Mehmood, S.I., P.W. And Muhammad Rohtas, Head Constable, P.Ws. Are the recovery witnesses. They stated that on 24-9-1989 the appellant led to his shop in the Main Bazar of Isa Khel and got recovered unlicensed Klashnikov Exh.P.1 lodged with 10 live cartridges Exh.P.1/1-10 from behind some Thans of cloth. They further stated that the appellant was not holding any licence for keeping fire-arm recovered from him.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of Klashnikov from him. He raised the plea of false implication. In y reply to Question No.3, he stated:-- "I own a private car and ply it as a Taxi. Khalid Mahmood S.I. Hired the said car but refused to pay its fare to me and on this account I had an altercation with him, therefore, he had falsely involved me in this case. The police of Police Station Isa Khel had also involved me in a false case in 1986."
He did not produce any evidence in this case nor did he make evidence on oath in disproof of the charge against him. However, he tendered Exh.D.B., copy of the F.I.R. No.128 and the order of the Magistrate dated 25-9-1990 Exh.D.C. In defence.
5. Believing the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it and disbelieving the defence plea of false implication, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as no person from the Bazar was associated- to witness the recovery; that the recovery witnesses are police officials; that there is no independent corroboration of their statements and that the statements made by them suffer from contradictions and discrepancies. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
7. We have considered the matter carefully. We do not agree with the learned counsel for. The appellant. We find that it was on the pointation of the appellant that unlicensed Klashnikov was recovered from behind the Thans of cloth lying: in his shop. There is nothing on record to show that the shop was not exclusively occupied by him. Khalid Mahmood S.I. And Rohtas Khan, Head Constable P.Ws. Are as good witnesses as any person from public. They have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any material contradiction, major discrepancy or dishonest improvement. On our independent assessment of the evidence, we do not see any illegality warranting the rejection of the testimony. The appellant has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and evidence produced by it. The documents tendered by him do not falsify the prosecution case or adversely effect the credibility of the recovery witnesses. For these reasons, we are convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.
8. This brings us to the question of sentence. The appellant was/is not a previous convict. We feel that the sentence of 7 years' R.I. Awarded to him is a bit harsh. So it is reduced to 4 years' R.I. The fine of Rs.20,000 appears to be g excessive, therefore, it is reduced to Rs.5,000 or in default thereof 6 months' R.I. The appellant will also get the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. With this reduction in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-7/L